Camel v. Palmer
Filing
16
ORDER denying 15 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and access to attorney. 15 Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TREVEON CAMEL,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-12591
HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS
v.
CARMEN PALMER,
Respondent.
____________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND ACCESS TO ATTORNEY
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration concerning
the Court’s denial of his habeas petition, as well as his motion for access to his attorney.
The Court denied a certificate of appealability and denied leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal when it denied the habeas petition.
In his motion, Petitioner does not challenge the Court’s decision denying him relief
on his habeas claims. Rather, he asks the Court to withdraw its decision because he has
a collateral review motion (his second) pending in state court and wants to be able to
proceed on those claims in federal court should the state courts deny him relief. Petitioner
also asserts that he was improperly subject to multiple prison transfers and sent from a
prison in the lower peninsula to a prison in the upper peninsula during the pendency of his
habeas case and that prison officials are only allowing contact with his attorney through
regular mail.
As an initial matter, the Court finds no reason to reconsider its decision to deny the
habeas petition. Petitioner has not met his burden of showing a palpable defect by which
the Court has been misled or his burden of showing that a different disposition must result
from a correction thereof, as required by Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). The Court properly denied
relief on Petitioner’s habeas claims and denied the petition. The Court also properly denied
a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
The Court also declines to withdraw its decision to allow Petitioner to await the
conclusion of his second round of state collateral review proceedings and then proceed on
those claims in this case. As counsel for Petitioner acknowledges, in December, 2013, on
Petitioner’s own motion, the Court dismissed a prior habeas petition without prejudice to
allow Petitioner to exhaust additional claims in the state courts. In February, 2014, the
Court denied Petitioner’s request to set aside that dismissal, reinstate his case, and waive
the exhaustion requirement.
At the time of those proceedings, the Court informed
Petitioner that he had three months of the one-year statute of limitations period remaining
in which to seek federal habeas relief. In June, 2014, Petitioner filed his second motion for
relief from judgment in the state courts.
In July, 2014, Petitioner instituted this habeas action, including only his exhausted
claims. Petitioner did not inform the Court that he had a motion pending in state court. In
fact, he checked the box on his form petition indicating that he did not have any petition or
appeal pending in state or federal court. See Pet., p. 12. Counsel subsequently filed an
appearance and adopted that pleading as if signed by himself.1 Respondent filed an
1
The original petition was submitted on Petitioner’s behalf by another prisoner.
The Court issued a deficiency order and counsel responded by filing an appearance.
2
answer to the petition and the state court record in February, 2015. Petitioner did not file
a reply to that answer. The Court issued its decision in June, 2016.
As the foregoing procedural history indicates, Petitioner had ample opportunity to
fully pursue all of his potential habeas claims in the state courts before seeking federal
habeas review. Moreover, once he instituted this action, he could have informed the Court
that he had a matter pending in the state court and seek a stay prior to the issuance of the
Court’s decision, but he did not do so.2 While Petitioner may have been subject to multiple
prison transfers, sent to a distant prison, and only able to communicate with counsel via
regular mail for some unknown period of time,3 he had more than sufficient time to consult
with counsel and make decisions about how to handle his case – his habeas petition (the
second one) was pending in this Court for nearly two years. The Court never heard one
word about prison transfers or limited communications with counsel until the case was
dismissed. Petitioner fails to show that he is entitled to reconsideration or withdrawal of the
Court’s decision.
Additionally, the Court notes that Petitioner is not foreclosed from seeking federal
habeas relief on any additional claims contained in his second state court motion for relief
from judgment and related appeals. Once he completes the state court process, he can
2
Respondent informed the Court of the pending motion in the answer to the
petition, but did not move for dismissal on such a basis. Petitioner did not file any reply
to the answer.
3
Petitioner fails to provide details about his alleged multiple prison transfers and
fails to indicate when he was transferred to the upper peninsula. Counsel’s and the
prison official’s emails regarding communication limitations are dated May 23, 2016 and
May 24, 2016 – approximately 22 months after the petition was filed, 15 months after
the answer was filed, and less than one month before the Court issued its decision.
3
request authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to file a
second or successive habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2), (3).
Lastly, as to Petitioner’s request for access to counsel, the Court declines to address
such matters given that it has denied habeas relief and closed this case. If Petitioner
pursues an appeal and continues to have problems communicating with counsel during that
process, he should seek appropriate relief from the Sixth Circuit.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motions for
reconsideration and for access to his attorney. This case remains closed. No further
pleadings should be filed in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Nancy G. Edmunds
NANCY G. EDMUNDS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 2, 2016
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?